3/09/2005

Congress on Steroids

In the article Congress on Steroids, it is concerned with the use of steroids in Major League Baseball. The reason that congress is deciding to take this upon their selves to resolve is for the future generation of children. So that they do not get the wrong idea that steroids are good for you, and if you use them nothing will happen to you. Baseball players are role models to thousand of kids, and as a role model they should act like ones. There are also those that think that congress should not have any part of this. Some people have asked, “Is it a good idea to have a hearing, why is it necessary?” Congress does think that it is necessary because they think that there is a cloud over baseball and they would like to relieve it. But as already mentioned the main reason or focus is the message being sent out to the children. What do you think should Congress have a part in deciding what happens in the baseball world of steroids?

7 comments:

BOB said...

Having steroids in baseball is nothing short of unethical. The illegal substance needs to be banned, and will be if the league can have severe punishments for usage. This is obvious, but what does congress have to do with this?

Lana said...

Many Americans consider baseball not only a part of the history of the United States, but a legacy. It would be a shame if nothing were done to keep the game the way it has been played for decades--drug free.

scott said...

In response to Lana's comment, American baseball has never been a "drug fee" game. Before baseball was endorsing steriods, it was endorsing chewing tabacco. Babe Ruth, the "Colossal of Crash," was an alcoholic. I think that congresses concern with steriods is not only in relation to baseball, but to sports as a whole. The same steriod concerns have been a problem in the last two Summer Olympics. I think that congress should be concerned with the problem.

Dale said...

Jose Cansaco was interviewed regarding steriod use in MLB. There should be some restriction because steriod use is common in MLB, and nothing will change if nothing is done. This is certainly my view and I think that others have the same view. So if the senate is their to represent us, then they are supposed to reprepresent all of our views.

Emily said...

The subject at hand is complex because this is a private sector of business that government is stepping into. My reaction to government coming in and taking control was “its not really the place for government to intervene because this is a private matter and if government comes in on this what else will they have to intervene in and take control of.” I agree that the players are “role models” and have a great amount of influence on kids, but this is when parents and mentors come in and explain what they are doing is wrong. The government should not have to be the parent. The business should have had enough respect fort themselves to stop the usage before it came to this point. I guess the government will make them respect themselves regardless if they should or not.

sierra said...

Right now I don't think congress should step in on steroids. I think congress should wait and see if the new policy on steroids in baseball works or not. I personally think that the new policy should have been, any users of steroids caught for the first time should be suspended for one full season, and if caught another time, then they should be banned from playing the game again. This seems to be the only way steroids are not going to be used by professional athletes. If the new policy does not work in the future, then I think congress needs to step in. Every one is making steroids sound bad because people use them for increased athletic performance, when it should be talked about mostly because of the bad health reasons it brings.

Dr. Tufte said...

-1 on Harry's post for poor capitalization, and on Dale's and Scott's comments too.

I'm not actually sure that Congress has any jurisdiction in this matter, since Major League Baseball has an antitrust exemption.

But, we do need to keep in mind that we elect people to "do something". This tends to make them "do something" even when they have to make it up as they go along.